Eswood Australia P/L & J. Goldstein & Co. P/L

[2014] FWCA 8050

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Eswood Australia P/L & J. Goldstein & Co. P/L
(AG2014/9297)

GOLDSTEIN ESWOOD (SMITHFIELD) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2015

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 28 NOVEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the Goldstein Eswood (Smithfield) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Goldstein Eswood (Smithfield) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Eswood Australia P/L & J.Goldstein & Co P/L. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to the application for approval have been met.

[4] The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers that organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s54 of the Act, will operate from 5 December 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 July 2015.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Eswood Australia P/L and J. Goldstein & Co. P/L, who were seeking approval of the Goldstein Eswood (Smithfield) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2015. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The primary issue before the Commission was whether the proposed agreement adequately met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in relation to procedural fairness and the protection of employee interests.

The Commission examined the process by which the agreement was negotiated and the content of the agreement itself. The key legal issues included whether the agreement was made in good faith, whether the parties had genuinely attempted to negotiate in a cooperative manner, and whether the agreement provided for appropriate protections for employees. The Commission also considered whether the agreement provided for proper mechanisms for dispute resolution and if it aligned with the broader objectives of the Fair Work Act.

After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith and that the parties had made genuine efforts to reach a consensus. The Commission also determined that the agreement provided adequate protections for employees, including fair terms and conditions of employment and appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. Consequently, the Commission approved the proposed enterprise agreement, finding that it met the necessary legal standards and adequately represented the interests of both employers and employees.

The Commission's final order was that the Goldstein Eswood (Smithfield) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2015 be approved, effective from the date of the decision. This ruling provided clarity and legal certainty for the parties involved, ensuring that the agreement would be binding and enforceable under the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established